The Authors of the new book “The Alternate-Day Diet" have seen fit to write to the Editor at The Independent in London to correct some errors in their original story, we publish below the full contents of their letter as it details important differences in the concept behind the suggested diet regime. More information can be found on the Alternate Day Diet website.

Dear Sir,

          I am responding to the numerous misquotes and errors in the review by Rachel Shields of our book, “The Alternate-Day Diet". It appears she did not read the book and has an agenda to create controversy rather than evaluate the science fairly. Her most egregious error is that we advocate overeating every other day, or "bingeing" as Ms Shields put it. The most important message of the book is that restraining oneself every other day is psychologically more feasible than restraining oneself every day, which as most dieters will agree, is impossible. Secondly, this method confers huge health benefits.

It is explained on our web site (alternatedaydiet.com) and in the book that on the "up" day one should eat to the point of satisfaction but to not intentionally overeat. One will lose weight and garner health benefits by following a pattern of eating normally one day and reducing  your calories to 20-50% of your normal intake the next day; exactly what you eat is much less important than the number of calories. This was demonstrated in our study of overweight asthmatics, published in the journal Free Radical Biology and Medicine, March 2007.

We have furthermore never advocated not eating all day then eating all your calories at night. This once a day pattern of eating is not only disagreeable, it may also have negative health effects, but the main objection is that most people find it difficult to control calorie intake. Only the alternate day pattern in which calories are restricted for roughly 36 hours at a time, including two sleep periods, engenders the behavioral and health advantages.

The comments of your scientific experts are obviously based not on the book but the reporter's representation to them. It is surprising that any self respecting "authority" in a scientific field would render off-the-cuff impressions based on a reporter's verbal summary.

The notion that this pattern of eating for weight loss would predispose to developing anorexia more than would other calorie restriction diets has no scientific basis. It should be understood that all cases of anorexia nervosa start with some form of weight reduction diet. However, it is no secret to anorexics to tell them it is possible to markedly restrict one's calories; it's obvious to them. In fact our experience is that anorexics don't find the concept of the diet appealing because the idea of eating normally every other day is repulsive to them.

Likewise, the claim that there is some relationship to bulimia of an alternate-day diet is baseless. In fact it appears from the article that the reporter does not know that bulimia is a disorder of self induced vomiting.

Perhaps the most stunning misquote in the article is in describing the inspiration for this pattern of eating in which the reporter states that I (Dr. Johnson) "…spotted a scientific study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which suggested that mice that were fed only every other day experienced significant weight loss and other health benefits."  It actually appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, May 1, 2003. The landmark nature of Dr. Mark Mattson's study was that the obese mice used did not lose weight when fed every other day, yet had profound improvements in health parameters and resistance to injury of brain cells, more so than seen in a group of the same breed of mouse fed only 60% of their normal calories daily. There is a full page illustration on page 29 of our book describing the study. The reporter entirely missed the central theme of the book: that short term calorie restriction (36 hr. at a time) turns on a mechanism which greatly increases resistance to stresses to which our bodies are constantly subjected, and are the source of aging and diseases of aging. This stress resistance improves our health.

Another misquote is that an alternate-day diet speeds up metabolism. All weight loss diets slow the metabolism over time. However, it appears from at least one study that by following the alternate-day pattern, resting energy expenditure is not reduced compared to other diets.  In other words the alternate-day diet does not speed up metabolism but may make it easier to lose weight because your metabolism does not slow down as much with daily weight loss regimens. There is sound evidence that the weight lost from the alternate-day diet is due more to fat loss and there is actually an increase in lean body mass (muscle) as fat is lost, in contrast to all other diets.

 It was disheartening to see that on top of her muddled use of the facts, blatant mistruths and misquotes that she also missed a chance to share ground breaking information with your readers such as the insights about the activation of the SIRT1 gene and its effects on weight loss and overall health, a topic about which we speak at length in the book. 

Yours truly,

James B. Johnson, M.D.
Donald R. Laub, M.D.